The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) shaped how companies reported climate risk for six years. In October 2023, the TCFD was officially disbanded. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and its IFRS S2 standard are now the global baseline for climate-related disclosure. For companies that built their reporting around the TCFD framework, the question is straightforward: TCFD vs ISSB, what actually changed, and what do you need to do differently?
Here is how these two frameworks compare, where IFRS S2 goes further than TCFD, and a practical transition guide for companies moving from one to the other.
Quick Comparison: TCFD vs ISSB
| Dimension | TCFD | ISSB (IFRS S2) |
|---|---|---|
| Status | Disbanded (Oct 2023) | Active, adopted by 30+ jurisdictions |
| Legal force | Voluntary recommendations | Mandatory where jurisdictions adopt |
| Scope | Climate only | Climate (S2) + all sustainability (S1) |
| Structure | 4 pillars, 11 disclosures | Same 4 pillars + industry-based metrics |
| Scenario analysis | “2°C or lower” recommended | Does not specify scenarios; requires explanation of selection including whether Paris-aligned was used |
| Physical risk | Qualitative identification | Quantitative: amount and % of assets vulnerable to physical risks |
| Scope 3 emissions | “If appropriate” | Mandatory if material, with measurement methodology |
| Assurance | Not specified | Designed for external assurance |
What Is TCFD?
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) created the TCFD in 2015 to develop voluntary climate disclosure recommendations for companies worldwide. The Task Force published its final recommendations in 2017, structured around four pillars: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics & Targets.
Within those four pillars sat 11 recommended disclosures covering everything from board oversight of climate risks to greenhouse gas emissions reporting. The TCFD framework was voluntary by design, but thousands of organizations adopted it. Regulators in multiple jurisdictions referenced TCFD in their own mandates, making it a de facto standard even without legal force.
The EBRD and GCECA published supplementary physical risk guidance in 2018 that recommended probabilistic estimates, including Value-at-Risk at the 1-in-100-year level and annual average losses. That guidance remains one of the most specific physical risk assessment recommendations tied to any disclosure framework.
What Is ISSB?
The IFRS Foundation created the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) at COP26 in November 2021. The ISSB consolidated several existing bodies, including the TCFD, the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB), and the Value Reporting Foundation (which housed the SASB Standards), into a single global standard-setter.
In June 2023, the ISSB issued two standards. IFRS S1 covers general sustainability-related financial disclosures. IFRS S2 covers climate-related disclosures specifically. Together, these create a comprehensive disclosure baseline that jurisdictions can adopt into their own regulatory frameworks. As of early 2026, more than 30 jurisdictions have adopted or are finalizing adoption of ISSB standards, with 21 already in effect.
Why Was the TCFD Disbanded?
The TCFD was not retired due to failure. The FSB announced in July 2023 that the TCFD’s work was complete. By that point, the TCFD’s core recommendations had been fully incorporated into the ISSB’s IFRS S2 standard. Maintaining a separate task force alongside a global standard-setter would have created redundancy.
The TCFD was officially disbanded in October 2023. The IFRS Foundation assumed the TCFD’s monitoring responsibilities, tracking how companies around the world implement climate-related disclosures. Companies applying IFRS S2 meet all TCFD recommendations and then some.
The timeline of the handoff matters for understanding the relationship between these two frameworks:
- 2015: FSB creates the TCFD
- 2017: TCFD publishes final recommendations (4 pillars, 11 disclosures)
- November 2021: IFRS Foundation creates the ISSB at COP26
- June 2023: ISSB issues IFRS S1 and IFRS S2
- July 2023: FSB announces TCFD work is complete
- October 2023: TCFD officially disbanded
- 2024 onward: IFRS Foundation monitors global climate disclosure progress
Key Differences Between TCFD and ISSB
While IFRS S2 builds directly on TCFD’s four-pillar structure, it goes further in several areas. The official IFRS S2-TCFD comparison document (updated February 2026) categorizes the differences into three types: same wording but different phrasing, in line with TCFD but more detailed, and entirely new requirements not present in TCFD.
Legal Status and Authority
TCFD published voluntary recommendations. Individual jurisdictions could reference them, but the framework itself carried no legal weight. ISSB standards are designed for regulatory adoption. When a jurisdiction adopts IFRS S2, compliance becomes mandatory for covered entities. As of early 2026, 21 jurisdictions have made ISSB standards effective, with another 15 finalizing their adoption approach.
Scope Beyond Climate
TCFD focused exclusively on climate-related risks and opportunities. The ISSB’s mandate is broader. IFRS S1 covers all sustainability-related financial disclosures, while IFRS S2 handles climate specifically. Companies adopting the full ISSB framework report on sustainability topics beyond climate, though IFRS S2 alone matches the TCFD’s climate-only scope.
Industry-Based Metrics
TCFD provided cross-industry guidance that applied uniformly to all companies. IFRS S2 goes further by requiring industry-based disclosure topics and metrics derived from the SASB Standards. The Industry-based Guidance on Implementing IFRS S2 covers 68 industries with over 500 industry-specific metrics, giving investors comparable data within sectors.
Scenario Analysis Requirements
TCFD explicitly recommended that companies consider a “2°C or lower” scenario in their climate resilience assessments. IFRS S2 takes a different approach. Rather than specifying which scenarios to use, it requires companies to select scenarios relevant to their own circumstances and explain their selection. Companies must disclose whether they used a Paris-aligned scenario among their chosen scenarios, but the standard does not mandate any particular one. TCFD was more prescriptive on scenario choice; IFRS S2 is more demanding on disclosure about why a company chose its scenarios. For a deeper look at how different frameworks handle scenarios, see scenario analysis requirements across disclosure frameworks.
Scope 3 Emissions
Under TCFD, companies were encouraged to disclose Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions “independent of materiality” and Scope 3 emissions “as appropriate.” The ISSB Standards require Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions “independent of materiality” but shift Scope 3 to “only if it is material.” While that might sound less demanding, IFRS S2 adds significant requirements around Scope 3: companies must disclose their measurement approach, inputs, and assumptions. Financial sector companies (asset managers, commercial banks, insurers) must report financed emissions. The standard also provides a Scope 3 measurement framework and permits companies to limit Category 15 disclosures to financed emissions.
Physical Risk Data Requirements
Under TCFD, companies identified physical risks as either acute or chronic and described their potential business impact qualitatively. IFRS S2 Paragraph 29(b) requires companies to disclose the “amount and percentage of assets vulnerable to climate-related physical risks.” That shift from qualitative identification to quantitative measurement is one of the most significant practical differences between the two frameworks.
| Requirement | TCFD | IFRS S2 |
|---|---|---|
| Risk identification | Acute and chronic classification | Same, plus geographic concentration of risks |
| Quantification | Not mandated (EBRD guidance: VaR at 1:100) | Para 29(b): amount and % of assets vulnerable |
| Scenario coverage | 2°C or lower recommended | No specific scenarios; must explain selection |
| Time horizons | Short, medium, long (undefined) | Short, medium, long (entity-defined) |
| Industry metrics | None | SASB-derived metrics per sector |
TCFD Disclosures Mapped to IFRS S2
The IFRS Foundation published a detailed comparison document (updated February 2026) that maps each TCFD disclosure to its IFRS S2 equivalent. The table below summarizes the 11 TCFD recommended disclosures and what changed under IFRS S2.
| TCFD Pillar | TCFD Disclosure | IFRS S2 Status | What Changed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governance | a) Board oversight | Broadly consistent | More detailed: must describe how responsibilities are reflected in terms of reference, role descriptions, and related policies |
| Governance | b) Management role | Broadly consistent | No material change |
| Strategy | a) Risks and opportunities | Broadly consistent | More detailed on value chain concentration. New: industry-based disclosure topics required |
| Strategy | b) Impact on business | Broadly consistent | More detailed: response plans, transition plans, anticipated financial effects. New: criteria for when quantitative information is required |
| Strategy | c) Resilience / scenario analysis | Broadly consistent | Does not specify scenarios (TCFD said “2°C or lower”). Requires additional resilience information. New: proportionate approach to scenario analysis |
| Risk Mgmt | a) Identify and assess | Broadly consistent | More detailed: data sources, input parameters, scenario analysis use. New: extends to opportunities |
| Risk Mgmt | b) Manage | Broadly consistent | New: extends to managing opportunities, not just risks |
| Risk Mgmt | c) Integration | Broadly consistent | New: extends to integrating opportunity management processes |
| Metrics | a) Climate metrics | Broadly consistent | Same cross-industry categories. New: industry-based metrics from SASB Standards |
| Metrics | b) GHG emissions | Broadly consistent | Major changes: Scope 3 “only if material” (was “as appropriate”). New: financed emissions, location-based Scope 2, measurement framework |
| Metrics | c) Targets | Broadly consistent | Differs from TCFD guidance on Paris alignment. New: carbon credit usage, sectoral decarbonisation approach, target review processes |
How to Transition from TCFD to ISSB
Companies that already report under TCFD have a head start. The IFRS Foundation notes that applying IFRS S2 “will meet the TCFD recommendations (and more).” The transition involves closing specific gaps rather than starting from scratch.
Step 1: Gap Assessment
Start by mapping your current TCFD disclosures against IFRS S2 requirements using the official comparison table. Focus on identifying where your existing disclosures fall short. The most common gaps are industry-based metrics (new in IFRS S2), Scope 3 measurement methodology documentation, and carbon credit usage disclosures.
Step 2: Address New Requirements
Four areas typically require the most work for companies transitioning from TCFD:
- Industry-based metrics from the SASB Standards, tailored to your company’s sector
- Scope 3 measurement methodology with documented inputs, assumptions, and approach
- Carbon credit disclosures covering planned use of credits to achieve net emissions targets
- Physical risk quantification under Paragraph 29(b), which requires the amount and percentage of assets vulnerable to climate-related physical risks
One gap most companies encounter moving from TCFD to IFRS S2 is quantifying physical risk exposure at the asset level. Continuuiti provides the data layer for that step: 12 climate hazards assessed under multiple scenarios and time horizons, with flood damage estimates that map directly to the EBRD’s recommended probabilistic VaR metrics and IFRS S2 Para 29(b) requirements.
Step 3: Align Timing and Governance
IFRS S1 requires companies to publish sustainability disclosures at the same time as their financial statements. If your TCFD disclosures were published separately or on a different schedule, the timing will need to align. First-year transitional reliefs are available: companies can defer Scope 3 disclosure and are not required to provide comparative information in their first reporting period.
Which Jurisdictions Require ISSB Reporting?
As of early 2026, 36 jurisdictions have adopted, are using, or are finalizing adoption of ISSB Standards, according to the IFRS Foundation’s jurisdictional profiles. The table below shows key jurisdictions with confirmed timelines.
| Jurisdiction | Framework | Status | Start Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | AASB S2 | Mandatory (ASIC) | Jan 2025 (Group 1) |
| Hong Kong | HKFRS S2 | Mandatory (HKEX) | Aug 2025 |
| Pakistan | ISSB Standards | Mandatory (SECP) | Jul 2025 |
| Nigeria | FRC | Mandatory | 2025 |
| Singapore | SGX Listing Rules | Mandatory | FY2025+ |
| Chile | CMF | Mandatory | Jan 2026 |
| Brazil | CVM Resolution 193 | Mandatory | 2026 |
| Mexico | CNBV | Mandatory | Jan 2026 |
| UK | UK SRS S2 | Mandatory (FCA) | Jan 2027 |
| Japan | SSBJ Standards | Mandatory (TSE Prime) | ~2027 (expected) |
| EU | CSRD / ESRS | Own framework (interoperable) | 2024 (Wave 1) |
| US (California) | SB 261 | TCFD-aligned | Under injunction |
Can You Use Both TCFD and ISSB?
Yes. TCFD resources remain available and useful as a starting point for companies beginning their climate disclosure journey. The IFRS Foundation has confirmed that existing TCFD-referencing materials “may still be helpful for companies preparing disclosures in accordance with IFRS S2.”
Companies applying IFRS S2 automatically satisfy TCFD requirements. Several jurisdictions still reference TCFD specifically in their regulations. California’s SB 261 requires TCFD-aligned physical risk reporting (currently under injunction). The UK’s existing TCFD mandate remains in effect until UK SRS S2 replaces it in January 2027.
For companies subject to both the ISSB and the EU’s CSRD/ESRS framework, the two systems are separate but interoperable. The ISSB and EFRAG have published interoperability guidance mapping disclosure overlaps. A company that complies with both avoids double-reporting for shared requirements. For a direct comparison of those two frameworks, see our CSRD vs ISSB comparison.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does ISSB replace TCFD?
Yes. The Financial Stability Board announced in July 2023 that the TCFD’s work was complete, and the TCFD was officially disbanded in October 2023. The ISSB’s IFRS S2 standard incorporates all 11 TCFD recommended disclosures plus additional requirements including industry-based metrics, mandatory Scope 3 emissions disclosure, and quantitative physical risk metrics.
Is TCFD obsolete?
Not entirely. TCFD recommendations remain available and useful as an entry point for companies beginning climate disclosure. Some jurisdictions still reference TCFD specifically in their regulations, including California’s SB 261 and the UK’s pre-2027 TCFD mandate. However, IFRS S2 supersedes TCFD in jurisdictions that have adopted ISSB standards.
What is TCFD now called?
TCFD was not renamed. It was disbanded in October 2023 after its recommendations were fully incorporated into the ISSB’s IFRS S2 standard. The IFRS Foundation now monitors global corporate climate disclosure progress, the role previously held by the TCFD under the Financial Stability Board.
What are the 4 pillars of ISSB?
The ISSB retained TCFD’s four-pillar structure: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics & Targets. Both IFRS S1 (general sustainability) and IFRS S2 (climate-specific) organize their disclosure requirements around these same four pillars, maintaining continuity for companies that reported under TCFD.
Why was the TCFD disbanded?
The FSB disbanded the TCFD because its mission was accomplished. The TCFD’s core recommendations had been incorporated into the ISSB’s globally adopted standards, referenced by regulators in over 100 jurisdictions. Maintaining a separate task force alongside a global standard-setter was no longer necessary.
What is the difference between IFRS S2 and TCFD?
IFRS S2 builds on TCFD’s four pillars and 11 recommended disclosures but adds several requirements: mandatory industry-based metrics from SASB Standards, carbon credit usage disclosure, mandatory Scope 3 emissions with measurement methodology, financed emissions for financial sector companies, and quantitative physical risk metrics requiring the amount and percentage of assets vulnerable to climate-related physical risks (Paragraph 29(b)).
Conclusion
The shift from TCFD to ISSB represents the maturation of climate disclosure from voluntary recommendations into mandatory, globally adopted standards. For companies that built their reporting around TCFD, the transition is additive rather than disruptive. IFRS S2 preserves the four-pillar structure and 11 recommended disclosures while adding the specificity and legal force that investors and regulators demanded. The TCFD vs ISSB comparison comes down to one thing: TCFD laid the foundation, and ISSB built enforceable standards on top of it.
